9911796707
TMI Blog1991 (11) TMI 109X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the firm as evidenced by this instrument was as under: . Profit Loss "Party No.1 Shri Harbans Lal HUF 16% 25% Party No.2 Shri Girish Mohan 08% 25% Party No.3 Smt. Veena Bithar 19% 25% Party No.4 Smt. Anjala Bithar 19% 25% Master Manoj Kumar (minor) 19% Nil Master Yashu (minor) 19% Nil It would be seen from the above constitution that Shri Harbans Lal represented his HUF and minors Manoj Kumar and Yashu respectively minor sons of Surinder Mohan and Vinod Kumar were admitted to the benefits of partnership. It is also clear that neither Surinder Mohan nor Vinod Bhushan was a partner in the said firm. 3. with effect from 4th Oct., 1975, there was a change in the constitution of the firm. This instrument recorded that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he assessee's paper book. For the subsequent period, the allocation was as per constitution which has already been extracted supra. 7. The assessee filed first application for registration in Form No. 11 on 7th Aug., 1975. The second application in Form No. 11 was filed on 30th Jan., 1976. On the basis of the above applications, the ITO processed the claim of the assessee for registration for the assessment year under appeal. According to the ITO, the firm was not genuinely constituted because, according to the ITO, the stamp paper on which the corrigendum was recorded had been registered in the stamp vendor's register under an inter-polation, that the contribution of capital by the lady partners, namely, Smt. Veena Bithar, Smt. Anjala Bi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 78 assessment year, the ITO himself explicitly states that statements of lady partners have been recorded which are placed on file and the other legal formalities have been complied with and to him the firm appeared to be genuine. In this way, it could be seen that there was hardly anything that could stand as a justification for refusal of registration to the firm for the asst. yr. 1976-77. For the asst. yr. 1978-79, continuation of registration has been allowed vide order dated 17th Dec., 1980. 9. Much was made of the cross gifts by the revenue and it was contended that there was no contribution of capital by the ladies. We have not been able to appreciate this argument because the cross of its have not been established as with the amou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
